Creation Science

'Creation Science' starts with its conclusion ('God did it') and goes round in circles repeating the same conclusion, trying to find evidence to support that statement and trying to find explanations for other phenomena which appear to be consistent with the main conclusion.

At no point does it offer any explanation as to how God may have done it. There is no attempt to propose a mechanism. 'God said "let there be light" and there was' is not science. How did the light come about? What was the initial source? What was the initial power source? Was it instantly at maximum intensity, or did it slowly increase in luminosity? If so, how long until it reached the maximum, if indeed it has yet reached the maximum? If creation science was actually a science there would be speculation about these sorts of questions.

2 comments:

So you don't think naturalistic/positivistic science starts with its conclusion, going around in circles repeating the same conclusion, trying to find evidence to support that statement and science trying to find explanations for other phenomena which appear to be consistent with the main conclusion?

naturalism (according to dictionary.com): "Philosophy.a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value."

At no point does naturalism/positivism offer any explanation as to the "initial source" of matter.

Whether the ultimate explanation is an eternal God or eternal matter (and I ask you which one is harder to wrap your head around, by the way), all the same questions you ask remain: What was the initial power source? Was it instantly at maximum intensity, or did it slowly increase in luminosity? If so, how long until it reached the maximum, if indeed it has yet reached the maximum? If positivist science was actually a science there would be speculation about these sorts of questions. Infinite regression is not merely a problem of theism or science done on the basis of theism.

Hmmm. By definition (the very definition you quote), positivism doesn't consider the initial source. So I'm not sure why you mention it here.

Some scientists (in all fields) start with conclusions and seek evidence to support it. But not all scientists in all fields. However, I would say that all 'creation scientists' do start from the conclusions. And furthermore, if any evidence is found which contradicts the conclusions, they will explain it away, dispute it or ignore it entirely.

Yes, I know that some scientists in all fields do this, but not all scientists in all fields.